• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Attachment B Analysis of Potential Freight Ferry Alternatives to the Proposed Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel Submitted to North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Inc. Prepared by TransTech Marine Co. September, 2004 Contents Introduction NJTPA Deliverables: Analyze the adequacy of the analysisof the Expanded Float 1-1 Option considered in the Cross Harbor DEIS as an alternative to the proposed freight rail tunnel. Identify differences between float alternatives in the DEIS and in the MIS. Review and evaluate assumptions relating to capital and operating costs, operational feasibility and other relevant factors that were used in evaluating these alternatives. 4. Sketch alternative freight ferry systems using state-of-the-art 4-1 marine technologies currently under design or in operation that could be implemented in the New Jersey New York freight movement corridor. 5. Identify existing freight ferry systems elsewhere in the country 5-1 and world that demonstrate the feasibility of this technology and its successful use in freight ferries. 6. Provide summary estimates of capital and operating costs for 6 -1 modem freight ferry systems in the New York Harbor and contrast those costs to existing ferry operations and the proposed cross-harbor tunnel options. 7. Provide recommendations for policies and further research needed to realize the potential for freight ferry systems. Appendixes: to Deliverable 4 Appendix 4 to Deliverable 5 Appendix 5 to Deliverable 7 Appendix 7 Introduction In August 2004, NJTPA, Inc. retained TransTech Marine Company to prepare an Analysis of Potential Freight Ferry Alternatives to the Proposed Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel. The analysis is to assist NJTPA in formulating its response to the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project DEIS issued by the New York City EDC in April 2004. Responses to the DEIS are due by 30 September 2004. This report is organized according to seven deliverables listed below that ware in the Draft Scope of Work provided by NJTPA to TransTech. Appendixes are included, where appropriate. Appendixes are keyed to deliverables and consequently, are not numbered sequentially. 1. Analyze the adequacy of the analysis of the Expanded Float Option considered in the Cross Harbor DEIS as an alternative to the proposed freight rail tunnel. 2. Identify differences between float alternatives in the DEIS and in the MIS. 3. Review and evaluate assumptions relating to capital and operating costs, operational feasibility and other relevant factors that were used in evaluating these alternatives. 4. Sketch alternative freight ferry systems using state-of-the-art marine technologies currently under design or in operation that could be implemented in the New Jersey New York freight movement corridor. 5. Identify existing freight ferry systems elsewhere in the country and world that demonstrate the feasibility of this technology and its successful use in freight ferries. 6. Provide summary estimates of capital and operating costs for modem freight ferry systems in the New York Harbor and contrast those costs to existing ferry operations and the proposed cross-harbor tunnel options. 7. Provide recommendations for policies and further research needed to realize the potential for freight ferry systems. TransTech Marir&Co. would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Herbert Landow in the preparation of this analysis 1 review. Mr. Landow generously shared of his time and work done by his firm for the New York Sate Department of Transportation on the technical and economic viability of rail freight ferries in NewYork Harbor. The assistance of many others too numerous to mention is also recognized and appreciated. Any errors of omission or commission in this analysis 1 review are solely the responsibility of TransTech Marine Co. Deliverable #I Analyze the adequacy of the analysis of the Expanded Float Option considered in the Cross Harbor DEIS as an alternative to the proposed freight rail tunnel. Various interests have studied the merits of building a freight rail tunnel under New York Harbor or under the Hudson River in the past. The Pennsylvania Railroad proposed it in 1893 and again in 1903, and it resurfaced in the 1920s and again in 1941. None of the proposed tunnels were built, though construction on one was started. One study in particular (actually, a series of studies) speaks to the question of "... adequacy of the analysis of the Expanded Float Option..." and is summarize below. The Metropolitan New York Intermodal Study In the late 1970s the New York State Department of Transportation sponsored a series of investigations to improve east-of Hudson River TOFC rail service into New York City. The studies are collectively known as the Metropolitan New York Intermodal Study. The firm of Landow Consulting Associates, Inc. managed the Metropolitan New York Intermodal Study and all sub-contractors on behalf of NYS DOT. The study team included: Reebie Associates Market Analysis Parsons, Brinkerhoff - Centec Tunnel Engineering Island Designed Products Ferry engineering Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. Ferry pricing A total of ten technical approaches from an initial universe of fourteen possibilities were selected for detailed analysis to improve TOFC rail service to New York City via three geographic gateways. The gateways considered were: 1) improve access via the existing rail bridge at Selkirk, New York; 2) reopen the railroad bridge at Poughkeepsie, New York, and 3) cross directly into New York City proper from New Jersey via a tunnel or ferry. The four technical approaches not considered after the initial investigation phase were as follows: (All page numbers below refer to the Metropolitan New York Intermodal Study, Summary Report). (ft) TransTech Marine Co. 1. Penn Station Tunnel: The study found that over 80% of trans-Hudson railroad traffic could not use the Penn Station route due to physical clearance problems. Track lowering, the only feasible solution, was rejected as too costly and as taking too many years to complete under traffic. (p. 19) 2. Greenville, NJ - Bay Ridge Freight Rail Tunnel: The initial study phase excluded this tunnel alignment on grounds that its cost was "far too high to be economic in terms of the operating savings contemplated". (p. 20) 3. Staten Island - Bay Ridge Freight Rail Tunnel. (IBID) 4. TOFC Operations via Car Float: Car floating is a method dating from the 1gth century of transporting individual railroad cars or groups (cuts) of rail cars aboard barges fitted with tracks propelled by tugboats (Figure 1-1). Car float service was not considered sufficiently time sensitive to attract TOFC freight (p. 25), nor were the car floats large enough to efficiently handle full trainload operations (p.26), an objective of the study. The remaining ten technical approaches divided into: 1. Seven different new freight rail tunnel alignments under the Hudson River. 2. Re-opening the Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge and assessment of the amount of traffic likely to be attracted to this gateway. 3. Improvements to existing railroad infrastructure on the Hudson Division of (now) Metro North to enable movement of TOFC traffic. 4. Examination of the technical feasibility and economics of using modern, efficient, self-propelled train ferries (Figure 1-2) to transport entire trains across Upper New York Bay from Greenvile, NJ to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. New York State adopted option three soon after completion of the Study, as it represented the best short-term (partial) remediation of the problem. However, concerning a longer-term solution, the Study concluded that a modern, efficient train ferry system operating between New Jersey and Brooklyn "... has sufficient positive economic merit to warrant further investigation." (p. 34). The NYS DOT study speaks to the adequacy of the EDC DEIS analysis on three counts: 1- NYS DOT approached the subject of east-of-Hudson TOFC as a comprehensive intermodal study, whereas a stated goal of the EDC DEIS is I... to divert freight shipments in the future (2025) from truck to rail." (Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project, DEIS, Executive Summary, p. S -1 2). (Q) TransTech Marine Co. 1-2 Both studies share the goal of diverting truck traffic onto rails, but the wider lens through which NYS DOT viewed the challenge included naval architecture and ship building expertise on the study team. This enabled identification and validation of a more innovative and economically viable solution to tunnel construction. Notably, the train ferry advocated by the NYS DOT study varies only in scale and level of automation from many successful predecessor vessels of thistype in America. The NYS DOT studies were not designed for or intended for publication, and hence, all engineering and economic analyses were conducted in the absence of external political or regional economic influences. A ". .. strong public participation component ..." as cited in the EDC DEIS (IBID p. S - 5) can work two ways in the early planning stages of large, publicly funded projects. On one hand, a good project can be made better, but on the other, external pressures can be introduced that place parochial and political interests above broader societal interests. The traffic volume estimates used to rank the technical approaches in the NYS DOT studies were based on actual freight traffic records provided by Conrail, totaling 6,818,777 individual rail shipments during ten months of 1977. Using the study's measure of merit of avoided cost from reduced circuity of travel, only identifiable trans-Hudson rail freight (449,933 shipments) that could be expected to use a given gateway based on costs saved was used as the volume on which to measure the economic benefits of that gateway. By contrast, the findings in the EDC DEIS are based on projected rail freight volumes in 2025. Implicitly, basing conclusion on real shipment records is more conservative than using estimates or projections. Conclusion: The DEIS is incomplete because the effectiveness of train ferries around the world and in America's past is not cited.

Load more

  59

Copy Link